On Tuesday I posted the story from Daily Maverick about investigative journalist Jacques Pauw claimed wrongful arrest for not paying his bill at an then unnamed Waterfront restaurant, arrested by the police, and spending part of a weekend in a holding cell. This was followed a few days later by a retraction of the story on Twitter by Pauw, describing a completely different set of circumstances, taking full responsibility for the events, and apologising to one and all involved.

Daily Maverick has been at great pains to explain its journalistic procedures and fact checking what took place when it allowed Pauw to post the story in its medium. Not only did Pauw not retract his story in the same publication in which his story first appeared, but Pauw’s actions caused the publication severe negative publicity. It has parted ways with Pauw as one of its contributing journalists. 

Journalist and Restaurateur Jacques Pauw apologises for his Daily Maverick article about wrongful arrest after Waterfront meal!

Daily Maverick has just published Version 3 of the events and named Den Anker as the restaurant in the centre of the shitstorm! This appears to be closest to what really happened:

‘The facts

The apology may indeed have been the right thing to do, but it soon became clear that the retraction’s contents included further elisions and evasions. For one thing, the text was written in consultation with the management of the V&A, and without the input of Daily Maverick’s editorial staff – an ethical breach that only added to the messy fallout. Pauw then uploaded the missive on to Twitter as a standalone statement, failing to include the important qualifications made by Daily Maverick in its formal apology and retraction. Worse, as Daily Maverick continued to investigate, it appeared that Pauw had lied about almost the entire lead-up to the arrest — a fact he did not appropriately address in his retraction, but one that would result in the piece being unpublished the following day.

It seems obscene to report the following events in light of the very real problems currently unfolding in South Africa, but this is where we find ourselves. After reviewing the CCTV footage from the restaurant, and after consulting with sources at the Waterfront (who did not want to be named for fear of reprisals), we can now reveal how the afternoon played out.

After midday on Saturday, Pauw arrived at the restaurant with a young female companion. Pauw described her to one source as a journalism student writing a piece on his work, and to Daily Maverickas an aspiring Angolan writer asking for help on a book project. (We will not expose the identity of the woman by publishing excerpts or images of the CCTV footage.) His descriptions of his companion are obviously inconsistent and appear to change every time he tells the story. He did not make her number available so that we could confirm his account. Regardless, for the following six hours, they consumed what can only be described as a staggering amount of alcohol — one draught of beer, three bottles of sauvignon blanc, two gin and tonics, and 20 shots of tequila. Pauw claims that there were two additional people drinking on his tab. Daily Maverick has been unable to confirm this detail. 

Shortly before 6.30pm, Pauw was seen in CCTV footage without his companion. He counted out six or seven bills, and attempted to pay the R1,630 cheque with a combo of cash and bank card. The card was declined, and the waiter returned it. In his original column, Pauw claimed that he left his keys and cellphone with the woman at the table and went to draw money from an ATM, using this as “proof” that he would never have considered absconding. This account is untrue. 

Instead, the footage now depicts his female companion returning to the table. She apparently urged the waiter to try the card again. Sitting, she gesticulated at Pauw, who appeared passive and unresponsive. She stood up, took the cash off the table and pocketed it. This would appear to explain the missing R1,000 Pauw accused the police of stealing from him. (To be clear: we do not know why she took the cash.) The woman is also believed to have taken his keys and cellphone, which Pauw now confirms, and he told us that he picked it up from her in Cape Town when he got out of jail. 

The pair then left the restaurant, and the woman apparently went on her way. Pauw claimed that at some point later in the evening his face mask was stripped by the cops. But CCTV footage clearly shows that neither he nor the woman was wearing one at the table. Another boo-boo. 

Two waiters then gave chase. They returned to the restaurant with a compliant Pauw in tow. After a few minutes, Pauw left again without successfully settling his tab, and the waiter followed for a second time. About 12 minutes later, Pauw left for a third time. The manager followed, and Pauw trailed back into the restaurant behind him once again, where he stood front-of-house for more than 15 minutes, trying unsuccessfully to pay with his card. According to a source, he had fumbled his PIN number one time too many, and his card had been blocked by the bank. “Yes, that could absolutely be,” Pauw said when we put this to him. 

The manager can be seen on the phone, and shortly thereafter a V&A security guard arrived. The guard waited around the entrance, speaking on his radio, but did not intervene. 

The deference and patience with which Pauw was treated by the restaurant staff would be touching if it wasn’t so unearned, which brings us to the first sign of the queasy power dynamics this story would eventually elicit. At no point was he manhandled; at no point until his arrest did anyone lay so much as a finger on him. After his third attempt to leave, the security guard eventually asked Pauw to follow him to the control room on the far side of the complex, where he was told that he could provide either a credit card or his ID as collateral, and pay his bill the following day. There, he encountered three SAPS officers, who were, according to a source familiar with the matter, at the venue to investigate the smashing of a car window. According to that same source, Pauw appears to have become paranoid and increasingly belligerent. He allegedly swore at them, and goaded the police to arrest him. 

This they did. 

These details, confirmed by sources, backed up in some cases by CCTV footage, are simultaneously banal and salacious. What we don’t know yet is why the police charged Pauw with theft. As far as his interactions with the cops are concerned, Pauw maintains that he was unlawfully arrested, and injured in the process. 

The details of this miserable little tale are essential to understanding how this story would unravel and implode in the following days. They also lay out the scale of the malpractice. What made Pauw’s piece so compelling was that it concerned the wrongful arrest of a trusted South African truth-teller, who just happened to have a platform and power. But it would soon become a story about the abuse of platforms by those with power. 

Indeed, it appears that Pauw was given every opportunity to solve his non-dispute – privileges that are not afforded to every South African. Pauw acknowledges as much in his piece, which admittedly contains far more incidental self-awareness than his critics have given him credit for.

“I am privileged and have a public persona,” he wrote, “which others do not have. They are vulnerable and have little recourse.” He then quoted constitutional law professor Pierre de Vos: “The richer and the whiter you are, the less likely that you will be wrongfully arrested.”

On this, it appears, De Vos was dead-on.

The fallout 

In its aftermath, the story lurched its way into the minefield of postmodern journalism’s weak spots, and blew itself to smithereens. 

Following Pauw’s retraction, Twitter went – how shall we put this? – apeshit. And while normal, balanced South Africans don’t spend their days obsessively scrolling through their Twitter feeds, this is where the mediated elite lives, breathes, and prosecutes its grievances. It has entirely supplanted reality for those who craft South Africa’s reality, and we shouldn’t pretend otherwise.

That said, the column kicked up some very worthy debates. First, it exposed what many described as the “centering” of white male voices in a media-scape that hasn’t transformed nearly as much as it should have over the course of the past quarter-century. White man gets pissed, gets arrested, and then re-crafts the narrative online to make himself look like the aggrieved party. This is an astonishing abuse of power, but it’s also an astonishing display of power. Was this lack of perspective due to an internal bias that naturally listens to powerful men without questioning their authority?

Second, commentators said the piece proved that there were different rules for whites, blacks and everyone in between – pundits were convinced, despite the storm breaking over his head, that Pauw would walk away without censure because he was a white male with a long and impressive CV. 

That said, the fallout for Pauw has been swift and brutal: Daily Maverick has publicly parted ways with him. (He took two opportunities to explain himself to the publication: neither was credible or worthy of quotation. He also spoke with us on several further occasions by phone. No dice.) It remains to be seen whether any other publication or imprint will publish him again. 

Distressingly, if obviously, the fallout has led to questions around media credibility. Both Pauw and Daily Maverick have published controversial, deeply disturbing investigations into the conduct of the South African superstructure over the years. The majority of the people who feature in our stories have faced no real censure themselves, and remain free to discredit the news media. Every single time we get something wrong, they’re handed another piece of ammunition to attack us with. Pauw’s deliberate lies, and our failure to catch them, critics insisted, didn’t just sully himself and Daily Maverick. It damaged the entire institution of journalism at a time when we can least afford it. 

Then there’s the more human level. It’s worth asking: Who is allowed to screw up in public South African life? Who is granted a second, third, fourth chance? Was Pauw suffering a meltdown, like so many journalists dragged through the Hell of Covid, corruption and crime? The same Twitter mob that denounced the evil V&A now turned on Pauw’s cavalcade of social media critics, who were in turn demanding a proper drawing and quartering. It was a cage match of self-righteous indignation. As the British journalist Jon Ronson noted in his book, So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed: 

“With social media, we’ve created a stage for constant artificial high drama. Every day a new person emerges as a magnificent hero or a sickening villain. It’s all very sweeping, and not the way we actually are as people.” ’

Time will tell if Den Anker will gain or fall from this story!

 

Chris von Ulmenstein, WhaleTales Blog: www.chrisvonulmenstein.com/blog Tel +27 082 55 11 323 Twitter:@Ulmenstein Facebook: Chris von Ulmenstein Instagram: @Chrissy_Ulmenstein @MyCapeTownGuide